Our live performance of the Infinite Monkey Cage last night was, I judge, a big success, and I am always on the pessimistic side. I confess that I was nervous beforehand, as I didn’t know if I’d have much to contribute to a stellar panel that included the hosts, Brian Cox and Robin Ince, the polymath Peter Sagal (best known for his NPR Show “Wait wait. . .don’t tell me”), Julia Sweeney, the writer, comedian and vociferous atheist, and my Chicago colleague Paul Sereno, an eloquent paleontologist specializing in the evolution of dinosaurs (and who, because of his many field expeditions to remote places, was introduced as “The Indiana Jones of Paleontology [I later beefed that I wasn’t introduced as “The Indiana Jones of fruit fly genetics”]).
But it all turned out well. Everyone was affable and nice as pie, we all got along, and the conversation, which seemed to take an hour (it was supposed to be half of that) flowed smoothly and, most important, contained some solid biology along with the comedy. Julia and Peter were well up on science, and not only helped Robin and Brian with the humor, but asked their own provocative questions and made thoughtful points.
The showed began with a short movie, most of it taken from Cox’s BBC series, and then there was some onstage give and take between Brian and Robin. This was followed by an vigorous monologue by Robin about evolution, which was hilarious. He ended up reading from Darwin’s last book on earthworms (read it if you haven’t): the part where Darwin plays bassoon and other instruments to worms, seeing if it would affect them (it didn’t). But his side comments on Darwin, and his acting out Darwin’s playing music to earthworms, had us all in stitches. Then Cox gave a mini-lecture on the origin of the universe, lavishly illustrated with slides, and wound up reading Carl Sagan’s famous “pale blue dot” passage.
After that we convened as a panel, talked for about 45 minutes, and answered audience questions (both verbal and tw**ted) for another 15 minutes. Among the topics covered were “Why did Tyrannosaurus rex have such tiny hands, and could it use them?”, “What exactly is the theory of evolution?”, “Why didn’t dinosaurs get brainier?”, “Why do animals have sex?”, “Why is there so much resistance to evolution in the U.S.?”, “Why is there even religion in the first place?”, “How are humans unique in evolution?”, “What do we know about the origin of life?”, “What is the evolutionary significance of male pattern baldness?” (Sagal’s question!), and so on. It was great fun, and since we couldn’t really see the audience (we were brightly lit, they in darkness), it was just like having a chat with a group of smart friends. The conversation could easily have lasted another hour without winding down.
Afterwards there were audience questions. One person tw**ted “Will we see the resurrection of the woolly mammoth in our lifetime?” to me. My answer was simply “no.” Asked to elaborate, I said that first, my remaining lifetime isn’t going to last more than two decades, and second, that there are formidable problems with re-creating a creature from DNA that is badly degraded. I suggested that it might simply be easier to simply select modern elephants to have more hair and longer tusks.
The whole show ran about 2.5 hours—an hour longer than we were told it would last, and that was because we were having so much fun talking about science. Judging by the applause, the audience liked it too. Kudos to Brian and Robin for their expert shepherding of the experts, and for keeping up a good mix of science and entertainment. Thanks also to Alexandra (Sasha) Feacham, the show’s producer, and Natalie Portelli of WestBeth entertainment for making the complicated arrangements and coddling the guests.
Sadly, the San Francisco and L.A. shows this week are both sold out, because otherwise I’d tell you to get your tuchus to those shows. I’m told that Neil deGrasse Tyson missed being live in New York City (Janna Levin was the other scientist), but he Skyped in from JFK airport, where his plane landed during the show (he was delayed by snow in Montana). Bill Nye picked up the slack.
Here are a few photos, and you can find others at the #chimc site on Twi**er, as well as some audience questions that were tw**ted.
Robin Ince and Peter Sagal in the Green Room before the show. Many of the things we chatted about beforehand found their way into the live discussion, including a mention of Ann Coulter:
Brian Cox. Julia and her significant other are reflected in the mirror:
Julia and Robert just before we went on:
Paul and I had our own dressing room; I didn’t use it because all the people, noms, and drinks were in the Green Room. But I had a photo taken because this will surely be the only time in my life I have a dressing room:
Two tw**ts showing the venue:
My own bon mot (see tw**t below): we were discussing what evidence could disprove evolution, and I mentioned that if an animal had a feature that helped only members of another species (and not itself), such as a lion with teats that could be used only to suckle warthogs, that would count as evidence against natural selection, since selection (as Darwin noted) can’t build features useful only for members of another species. Julia then floated a theory (which was hers) that perhaps a virus could infect lions giving them such teats, and I responded that it would be maladaptive, and that animals susceptible to that virus would be eliminated by selection. She then asked, “But why couldn’t a lion suckle both its cubs and warthogs?” My reply is in the tw**t below, which Robin said should be put on an Infinite Monkey Cage teeshirt:
Peter Sagal decried the selling of certainty to Americans who can’t live with doubt, and that there are industries based on denialism, including creationism, that make a lot of money for their proponents. He suggested this is one reason for anti-science attitudes in America. His other reason was that Americans are independent people who founded this country as contrarians, and we don’t like to accept authority, scientific or otherwise. (Ken Miller has also suggested the “rugged individualism” theory for American creationism.) While these may contribute a bit to antievolutionism, I think that the main reason is Americans’ extreme religiosity. The individualism and capitalism explanations can’t, for example, explain why all of American creationism is promoted by religious people.
But the first tw**t below shows what Sagal said when talking about the “cow mutilation phenomenon” that, in the 1970s and 1980s, had a number of spooky explanations, including attacks by aliens in UFOs:
A good time was had by all (I hope).
//
“His other reason was that Americans are independent people who founded this country as contrarians, and we don’t like to accept authority, scientific or otherwise”
Then why do Americans accept religious authorities who tell them that evolution is false and creationism is the truth?
I’ve always been baffled by the high level of religiosity in the U.S. It makes little sense given the rugged indiviudalism.
Excellent point given that so much of adherence to religion is mindless social conformism.
Also, American’s rugged individualism might be more imagined than real:
Per Uwe Reinhardt (Princeton University):
the time-honored mantra of American rugged individualism:
When the going gets tough, the tough run to the government.
From: Why the French are to blame for the US banking crisis.
http://www.princeton.edu/~reinhard/pdfs/WHY_THE_FRENCH_ARE_TO_BLAME_FOR_THE_US_BANKING_CRISIS.pdf
Exactly. The “rugged individualism” of Americans is baloney. In fact, appeals to authority probably constitute the most common fallacy I encounter in discussing any topic with my Americans.
…my fellow Americans.
There is a bit of an east to west gradient I’d say, tho.
I think the tendency to identify one’s self by group membership might be one way to be both very contrarian (“ain’t nobody gonna tell ME what to do!”) and very submissive (“Jesus is Lord, my only guideline is to obey.”)
Religion is an authority hierarchy which just happens to place the believer both on the bottom spiritually (lowly subject of God) and on the top secularly (conduit of God’s authority.)That way, you can be as independent and arrogant as hell while simultaneously framing yourself as naught but a humble follower.
I’ve always been baffled by the high level of religiosity in the U.S. It makes little sense given the rugged indiviudalism.
I think it’s plausible, so long as you keep in mind the following:
1. Creationism is almost always a product of high religiosity.
2. Higher religiosity follows from higher social inequality, such as unequal income.
3. Social inequality also coincides with a focus on status and wealth, which can be loosely termed external values (as opposed to internal values, which tend to focus on self-acceptance and social bonds).
4. External values exacerbate the problem by making the rich richer and the poor poorer, by making people more acquisitive when it comes to public resources, and by making it harder for the income gap to be bridged.
More speculatively, anyone proposing such measures has to conceal or ignore such uncomfortable facts. An easy way to do that is simply to believe the opposite: that the unfair advantages and social dysfunctions either do not exist or aren’t serious, and that inequality and social dysfunction occur because of people’s own efforts. In other words, you get an ethos of rugged individualism.
IF the “rugged individualism” view exists, of course.
———————————-
1 can be seen in this graph:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/chris-mooney-downplays-religion-as-a-cause-of-creationism/
2 can be seen here:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/income-inequality-and-the-dysfunctionality-of-america/
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/why-is-economic-inquality-associated-with-religiosity/
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/must-you-be-religious-to-be-moral-a-worldwide-survey-and-its-lesson/
3 can be seen here:
http://www.bellagioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Bellagio-Kasser.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00452.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
4 can be seen here:
http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2010.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-6494.00101/abstract;jsessionid=A7F705A627AE58C7814C6AC62749E128.f03t04
http://www.oecd.org/eco/public-finance/chapter%205%20gfg%202010.pdf
In brief: religion could be a natural cousin of a pervasive (if untrue and propaganda-esque) “rugged individualism” ethos, since they both emerge from and follow social dysfunction.
I’ve never understood the argument. How exactly is someone being a “rugged individualist” by joining an organized religion and becoming one in the flock of “sheeple”? Belonging to a church is the polar opposite of being an individual. Hermits, lone monks on isolated rocky outcrops, maybe, but coming together once or twice a week with a few dozen to a few hundred other people? Methinks not. What is more likely the reason behind religiosity in the US is the heavy handed anti-intellectualism that has polluted our soils since the first colonies, separated from the rest of a soon-to-be enlightened Europe, especially in the south, where education was only for the wealth white male, and even that was limited in scope. That’s my two cents, anyway. rugged anti-intellectualism.
I see a great commonality between US preachers and the shysters who sold snake-oil at travelling circuses. (I also noticed it in the commentator for Shamu the orca at San Diego Seaworld in 1988.) The Music Man is another example. Is being suckered a great American tradition?
Surely that’s hardly unique to America!
Can’t wait for the podcast!!
I’m very much looking forward to this…things I like, PCC and Infinite Monkey Cage, together!
Disappointed I didn’t think to look up the IMC tour schedule, though. I should have known it was coming near me, but, alas, too late.
The show last night was great. I’m a long time reader of this website, a listener of The infinite monkey cage and Wait, wait. Everyone in the panel seemed to be very comfortable and they were all very eloquent. Jerry had some funny moments (including the Indiana Jones of fruit fly genetics he mentioned) and his science answers were clear and concise. Congrats Jerry!
Regarding: Religiosity & Opposition to Darwinian evolution
Coyne, J. A. 2012. Science, religion, and society: the problem of evolution in America. Evolution, 2012, 66(8), 2654-2663
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01664.x/pdf
See Figure 1 in this paper:
The correlation coefficient between, per country (34 of them), belief in human evolution (y) and belief in god (x) is -0.61.
“The equation of the least-squares (cross-sectional) regression line is y = 81.47 − 0.33x”.
I am looking forward to watch (or listen to) this edition of Infinite Monkey Cage.
I am looking forward to hearing it. I still am not sure why they call it the ‘green room’. I thought it was supposed to be green…
Awesome! (Yes, I have some awe)
Don’t see the “American Individualism” as having much to do with non belief in evolution? What it probably does have a lot to do with is our inability to study or look at what other countries do and learn from them. We are very good at that, maybe number one.
Non belief in evolution is almost exclusively religious…
Woonderful!
Of course nomming and chatting with cool people is much more fun than getting dressed.
Any more pics of Brian??
Ha! You’re smitten! The two women guests I brought were also smitten, so you’re not alone. Sadly, I have no more photos, as I was too busy (and stimulated by ideas) to do my usual copious photography.
If you get famous enough you’re going to need your own Boswell (with cell phone camera).
LOL! There was one Christmas Monkey Cage where they asked the audience to submit what they wanted for Xmas and someone wrote “A naked Brian Cox” or something close to that.
I think it’s funny when Robin Ince complains that he looks so much older when he and Brian are the same age (they are both my age).
🙂
If you want pics of Brian Cox, here’s a great one from the glorious 1980’s:
http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01031/SNF2624C-380_1031543a.jpg
oops, sorry! didn’t mean to embed the pic, just the link!
No, that’s great. And what a hilarious photo. Every time he gives a seminar someone should show that photo in the introduction.
Does he have on big white earrings, or is that just reflection?
I want the hair! 🙂
A used to fret that my hair wasn’t big enough in the 80s, but then I saw pictures of myself from the 80s & my hair was pretty big. I think Brian’s was nicer than mine though!
Never had nor wanted big hair:-)
Still have big hair. Well, long & thick, anyway.
Cox’s biggest problem as a rocker must have been repressing that smile, to look cool.
You’re right about the smile;-) Too sweet to be cool.
He definitely looks like he could be a singer of an ’80s rock band with videos on MTV.
but alas, he was the keyboardist! but a very pretty one. His personal history is quite fantastic really, living down the street from Darren Wharton, a member of Thin Lizzy, and joining his new band, Dare, then later giving up the musician’s life for physics! He was on Desert Island Discs back in 2011 and gave a brief overview.
He was in bands in the 80s & 90s, with at least one major hit to his name. He started university afterwards!
Ha ha! You know he was going for the Duran Duran look.
For realz??? He musta got a perm.
Congratulations on having so much fun and teaching evolution at the same time! I look forward to seeing or hearing it….
I still feel, in my gut, that American individualism is at least a portion of the problem. But I freely admit that it cannot be all of it.
It is hard to capture this especially since I do not personally feel it, but I suggest that the sense of independence and individualism does not always mean ‘one independent person’. It also means ‘one independent community. These are, I think, like-minded people who are conservative and who do not want an intrusion by an outsider authority who threatens that community fabric. They go to the same church and work together. They socialize together, and are very committed to holding the same values. So when told by outsider scientists who probably do not even go to church that they should change their mind about evolution, well, that will not get very far b/c it is seen as a threat to their religion which is an important part of the their independent community.
I happen to agree with that view b/c acceptance of evolution is a very real threat to religious commitment. If a person changes their mind about evolution (and so about critical parts of their religion), they have just given up an important part of the bond to their family and to their neighbors.
At root, isn’t this simply tribalism?
I can see that. So if there is (still) such a thing as American Individualism then it is certainly not unique in the world.
We saw this play out with the case in Lebanon, Missouri with Principal Lowery. A lot of the comments I saw on their local message boards that I browsed involved being angry with the “big city college professor” intruding on their small town happiness.
Almost every Monkey Cage episode is wonderful, excepting perhaps the Glastonbury special, episode 5, series 4 “Is there room for mysticism in a rational world” featuring the unbearable “comedian” Shappi Khorsandi and musician Billy Bragg. Considering the venue and the guests, it’s no surprise that so much time is spent banging on about non-scientific artsy-fartsy mysticism crap and how important it all is and that science can’t have all the answers, and Khorsandi of course had to make the claim that scientists are just like religious fanatics. Cox was far too polite in this case.
meanwhile, back in the world of sophisticated sophistry, nytime’s ross douthat’s answer to humanity’s inevitable thralldom to our coming robot overlords. you guessed it, ye olde tyme religion:
“the case for old ideas”
Wow sounds like a great show! I probably missed it, so sorry, but will this show be broadcast in some way or made available on the web?
Monkey Cage podcasts, past and present, available from BBC radio 4, just search your iphone if you have one, or google search it and listen over the interwebs from BBC radio 4 site, but it’ll take a bit before this episode is available, post-production and all that.
btw, an amusing running gag/meme from earlier shows is the living/dead strawberry. that is, if we agree that a strawberry on the plant is alive, but then we pick it, when is it dead? when it is picked? when it starts to rot? I don’t remember in which episode it originated but it is worth finding, listening, and pondering. Schrodinger’s Strawberry!
Interesting. I will say ‘yes’ because it is still carrying out metabolic activities. The amputated strawberry is still doing respiration, making ATP, and it is still using that ATP to make other things. So the freshly picked and yummy strawberry is still alive, and maybe screaming in pain for several days while it very slowly dies.
So the freshly picked and yummy strawberry is still alive, and maybe screaming in pain for several days while it very slowly dies.
Plants screaming? Don’t be silly. Strawberries don’t have mouths. Only venus flytraps have those, and the only screams you’ll hear from them are the ones made by luckless flies trying to buzz their way out.
“Help meeee! Heeelllpp meeeeeeeeeee…..!”
I am not sure when the US shows will be broadcast in the UK – and available for podcast in the US. Best is to subscribe which you can do here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/timc
The homepages for the series are:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00snr0w
http://www.infinitemonkeycage.com/
There have been 11 series of the show since Nov of 2009. The first three series had four shows. The next eight have had six. The last series concluded on Feb 23. There seems to be two series a year and based on the past, I don’t think these shows will appear before June. Wikipedia has the past schedule which can provide some insight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Infinite_Monkey_Cage
The past episodes have varied in length from 25 to 50 minutes. Depending on how they are edited, the US shows may be good for 4 to 12 episodes. I think they will have a lot of tape to cut once they return to the UK.
Also … the podcast contains alot more of each show then the stipulated 30 mins for the radio broadcast.
Why “tw**t” instead of tweet? Surely animal vocabulary words like “tweet,” “woof,” “purr” and “meow” can’t be copyrighted.
It’s one of PCC’s “forbidden words” like d*g.
You can be as independent as you like and still accept scientific reasoning because science doesn’t rest on authority. It’s not because of their independent mindset that Americans reject science but because of their religiosity.
Yes, particularly because the religious mindset seems to have problems separating the authority of the scientific process from scientists having authority of the “Believe Me” variety. I keep hearing and reading variations of “it’s who you choose to trust” — as if we’re always dealing with personal stories and assessing the credibility of the story by considering the storyteller’s unique character.
They also slip far too quickly over the critical distinction between someone relating what they think God said … and God Itself. “God is reliable; people aren’t.” As if that painful example of question-begging was useful.
Invoking authority figures rather than actual arguments and evidence isn’t unique to religion, either. It’s a common element in quackery and anti-science arguments in general. Mainstream journalism does it every time it writes something like “Science says…” and “Research has shown…”
Or “There is no scientific evidence”, instead of just saying “there is no evidence”, …. since they are the same statement.
I think education has something to do with American’s lack of interest in evolution as well. I only have anecdotal evidence, but I graduated high school in 1987. When I was a sophomore (’85) I took an honors biology course, and evolution wasn’t taught. The teacher set up a debate where the students participated either on the evolution side or creation side and debated it for a few days. So though I did learn a little about evolution, it wasn’t structured or even regarded as true. As a senior, I took advanced biology, and again, we weren’t taught anything about evolution. I don’t know what other people’s experience with learning or not learning evolution in high school is, but mine was sub par for sure. Perhaps it has gotten better since then.
Anyway, looking forward to watching this MC when it appears.
My experience was similar in the 1990s. I took AP Biology in High School and did well enough on the test to avoid having to take it in college, and nary a word was mentioned about Evolution other than “we don’t have time to get to it.”
Debating it in a science class is bizarre, but not really surprising in America. Science doesn’t rest on who debates better. Nor does God’s existence. Theologians and everyday theists seem to think that a solid debate appearance can somehow argue something into being true (or false).
It has gotten better in Ontario Canada. It is now a full strand (unit) in grade 11 biology, taught just like any other of the strands.
“Why didn’t dinosaurs get brainier?”
I will never understand that question. Has the person who sent it in never heard of corvids?
(The worst thing is that Gould of all people apparently made the same mistake, although I admit that I haven’t read it with my own eyes.)
So, is that (infinite monkey) cage, or infinite (monkey cage)?
I’m back at home after a fine Chicago weekend of science, food, and libations.
The Adler Planetarium and TIMC supplied the science. Two PCC suggestions, XOCO and Edwardo’s, along with DryHop Brewers provided excellent food and libations.
The climax, of course, was TIMC. Our website host helped make it as good a panel as any I’ve listened to. If there were an index based on laughs per minute combined with science explained, Saturday evening at the Athenaeum Theatre would score very high indeed.
It seems to me that interspecies generosity could happen in the right circumstances. The alliance between men, dogs and horses profited all three greatly. Plants offer fruit or nectar in trade for pollination. Perhaps the lions have some use for warthogs, some reason to want them around, so much so that they’re prepared to feed them directly? Does the scent of warthogs attract the lions’ favourite prey?